Talk:Promiscuous (song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Promiscuous (song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Promiscuous (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 29, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
May 13, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 3, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 11, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hip hop Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Music Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canadian charts are not the same as Billboard charts

The Canadian Singles Chart is based on CD single sales and nothing more. The Canadian BDS Airplay Chart is a very well-known chart because it's one of the only radio charts that does not use "recurrent play" to remove songs, which means that "Promiscuous" could re-enter in ten years' time. I'm surprised that Canadian charts are being treated exactly like Billboard charts, but they are very different; for example, the Canadian Dance Chart is not as well known as the airplay chart, but it's still in the article. This is likely because it's being used in the same way, but that's not right. Here it was claimed that non-Canadians should not include the airplay chart if their single did enter the Canadian Singles Chart. However, because it's clearly notable (and because Furtado is Canadian), its use here is appropriate. Velten 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please cite a source that says the airplay chart is "clearly notable", even more so than the singles chart. Nationality of the performer was the main reason I removed the airplay chart from the other article; it certainly wasn't the only reason. Not only do you already know this, but you've provided a complete misrepresentation of the diff to which you linked above. Extraordinary Machine 20:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the airplay chart was more notable than the Canadian Singles Chart. It was not a misrepresentation. The latter part says "also, remove Canadian airplay chart, because Stefani isn't Canadian". Velten 21:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You call the BDS Airplay Chart "a very well-known chart", but you haven't provided a source. My edit summary never mentioned anything about whether the single entered the Canadian Singles Chart. As well as harassing other users, you should be warned about disrupting articles by edit warring, which your ArbCom case prevents you from doing. This is particularly relevant as most of these issues were discussed to death at Talk:Cool (song) and other discussion pages. Extraordinary Machine 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to stop making excuses. I am not "disrupting" this page; I am expressing a view and trying to incorporate information. That's not "disruption"; you are clearly in an edit-war with me and it's you who's touting it because you are treating the Canadian charts in a similar fashion to Billboard, which has to stop. I am trying to insert a particularly relevant chart in Canadian music. Could I ask you why you are adding the dance chart over the airplay chart? Velten 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a country's official singles chart is available, then there's no need to include an airplay chart because one chart is enough to give the reader an indication of the song's popularity in a certain country (except with mentioning things such as genre-specific charts, i.e. the dance chart, which tells the reader with what audiences the song was popular). If there was a significant discrepancy between airplay and sales (and there isn't in this case), it should be discussed in the article. This has nothing to do with Billboard charts; don't set up straw man arguments. Extraordinary Machine 18:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man arguments? I have no idea what you're talking about. However, since you've brought to attention the indication of a "genre-specific" chart, its inclusion should be fine. The BDS Airplay chart is generally pop-oriented and it's unlikely for an urban song to chart highly (this appears to mirror the Hot 100 Airplay, which is in favour of urban-oriented songs). "Promiscuous", which is urban-fused, peaked at number two for three consecutive weeks, which should meet the notability guidelines because it performed well on a chart that was difficult for it to peak highly on. Velten 16:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"two-sided relationship"

What the heck is a "two-sided" relationship? Can we be more explicit please? 75.18.208.221 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I've failed this article for GA status. Here are some things to do before re-nominating:

Move the audio sample to the Background and writing section for a better fair use claim.
Citations should immediately follow the punctuation without any spaces.
What is the "two-sided relationship that the song's protagonist deals with"? This phrase is completely unclear in its meaning.
Much of the Chart performance section is unreferenced.
The Music video section should probably include a screenshot to illustrate "lighting changes between blue, green, red, and yellow colours".
There's no discussion anywhere of what music critics said of the work.
There are no references provided for the table of chart positions.

If you disagree with this review, you can seek a review. ShadowHalo 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

Looks good although some things need fixing before i feel i can pass it;

All Music Guide compared the chorus to "vintage Prince" - When refering to a review make sure to state the reviewers name like - All Music Guide reviewer Stephen Thomas Erlewine compared it to the - to give it some context, one person does not represent the whole website.
On January 8, 2006, a thirty-second clip of the song leaked onto the internet. One sentence paragraph, reference?
music video debuted on MuchMusic's MuchOnDemand - not required for GA but do you know the date?
which was released in 2000 (see 2000 in music). These brackets are distracting and unneeded. If you feel you must link to the year in music link it through 2000 [[2000 in music|2000]] Please do not direct me to the guideline on it, it is terrible.
debuted at number five in Australia and -> debuted at number five on the Australia ARIA Charts
Some references needs to be formatted - Some do not include date, publisher, author (if there is one) and retrieve date - follow reference 10 as a guide
Reference 11 has the same information twice

Looks good. M3tal H3ad 10:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed, pass. You might want to add some sort of music and structure section describing the style/elements of the music. Goodjob. M3tal H3ad 05:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some lingering issues in the article not addressed during the review, so I've listed it at Wikipedia:Good article review. ShadowHalo 07:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resulting in WP:GA/R nomination appear to have been addressed. Subsequently, the nomination was withdrawn. Article shall retain GA status. Regards, LaraLove ^T/_C 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

The clip "Promiscuous" of Nelly Furtado have the honor of to be the most viewed video of history of Youtube, http://youtube.com/browse?s=mp&t=a&c=0&l= an achievemente that I think should be showed on the article, although I don't want to put it because I don't know to put cites. --Bentaguayre 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't relevant as the 'most viewed' status on YouTube changes very frequently. For example, the clip linked to from this article, here has under 85K views as of my posting this. What you linked to shows the 'most viewed', the most popular song (ironically 'nough is a Nelly vid but not 'Promiscuous' but rather 'Dilemma' featuring Kelly Rowland has over 12M. Have things changed this much in less than a year, or were you referring to a different clip of Promiscuous on YouTube? Regardless, I don't see Promiscuous currently anywhere on the top 20 vids that your link directs to. Perhaps if it were able to hold a #1 spot for a whole year or something then it might be a relevant mention (ask YouTube for the records, I'm not sure how you'd reference something like that) but otherwise nah. Tyciol (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Stefani remix?

Hey i just downloaded this track of MP3 Rocket and its over 5 minutes long and features Gwen Stefani's Hollaback Girl towards the end of the track! Anyone know anything about it?--RandomEnigma (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers[reply]

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Promiscuous (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]